Saul Griffith on Shooting for the Moon

January 4, 2020

6 Responses to “Saul Griffith on Shooting for the Moon”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    The best 12 minutes I’ve spent watching a video in a long time—-Griffith gets it, and has so many good ideas. The idea of simply buying out the reserves of the fossil fuel industries and turning their energies to WW Zero is jaw-dropping.

  2. Bryson Brown Says:

    I like it, too. This is concrete, and serious about both the issue and the numbers. As an Albertan, I’d be happy to see our bitumen, gas etc. companies bought out and turned into companies making the transition happen. But I do wonder (and worry) about getting past the politics; the tendency to cling to BAU until all hell breaks loose (and beyond, to just by Scott Morrison’s recent performance) is going to be very hard to fight. It’s a problem here in Alberta, too, with a government playing the same game in defending the industry that’s leading us straight to disaster, including blatant propaganda. Maybe convincing a few politicians that it’s either this or chaos in just a few decades would help, but they tend to believe what’s electorally popular today, and public opinion has a long way to go to catch up with reality.

  3. indy222 Says:

    Better… but still misses the key new science that makes it much worse. The CMIP6 models are confirming what Friedrich et al. already found, and Michael Mann praised – that ECS is not 3C as has been the canonical value used in all the models used by the IPCC, including their supposedly “dire” 1.5C announcement. The review paper by von der Heydt a couple years ago was good in showing that study after study shows that ECS is not a “constant” as it is on an idealized pure CO2 world, but instead in the real world, ECS is significantly higher in a background hotter climate. ECS=5C vs 3C changes everything. We don’t have zero time left, as Griffith says, we have much less than zero. Dangerous as it is, it demands GeoEngineering and negative emissions to halt temperature rise. Business as usual till 2050 and then complete shutdown of all direct human fossil fuel burning, still leads to atmospheric CO2 levels over 800ppm by 2300, thanks to just the permafrost climate feedback (and a conservative view, in some ways, at that). If ECS =5C and atmospheric CO2 goes to not 560ppm (doubling pre-industrial) but 3x pre-industrial, you’re talking about temperature rises of +8C even with total renewable global economies by 2050. We need massive atmospheric CO2 removal from the atmosphere on top of these gargantuan tasks – but where are we going to put it? Into the underground formations from which it came? Yet we’re fracking the hell out of the cap rock that acts as the reliable lid. It’s sheer suicidal madness, aided by corporate media-induced delusions, and timid scientists who allowed themselves to be censored and muzzled by the UN’s IPCC “consensus” process, that guarantees that all you need is a few industry plants in the team to emasculate the real journal science, while simultaneously allowing corporate media to hype this lobotomized science as at the “Dire” and “Alarmist” end of the spectrum.

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      The review paper by von der Heydt a couple years ago was good in showing that study after study shows that ECS is not a “constant” as it is on an idealized pure CO2 world, but instead in the real world, ECS is significantly higher in a background hotter climate.

      Aye, does the “idealized pure CO2 world” take into account (1) thawing permafrost releasing more CO2 and CH$, (2) drought-stressed vegetation dying if not outright burning, and (3) slower uptake of CO2 by increasingly warm sea surfaces?

  4. I agree with him on the urgency and what’s needed in terms of technology (electrification, coupled with de-carbonization of generation, for example). Also that involving industry is crucial, though this will certainly come with some challenges.

    But there’s a big gap between what he’s saying and actual specific policy language, as in a bill. To make a really credible proposal, that gap has to be closed.

    For example: who should be tasked with implementing all these changes? Is it the EPA, or Congress, via legislation? In either case, what do the specific policy measures look like down to the nitty gritty? That all needs to be carefully spelled out, in order to get backing from those with the power to actually proceed. All really hard work, but essential. Unclear that any of this was done with regard to his proposals.

    It’s way too easy to put forth unspecific talking points like this, dealing in generalities and emphasizing how urgent the situation is, and then feel good about oneself. But the really necessary work is to translate that to concrete policy, and build up a relentless campaign of public pressure to get the thing done.

  5. dumboldguy Says:

    My first comment was merely that I liked what I heard—–what BB, indy, and Wharton say is the reality of the matter—-we are NOT getting it done and are showing few signs of trying in the short time we (may) have left.

    Again, we somehow have to turn it all upside down, and soon. May I suggest again that we make Elizabeth Warren the next president, break the hold of the rich and the corporations on the country, institute the Green New Deal, and then hope that we can move fast enough to save half the living things on earth?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: